Does It Get Better???

Anyway. Yes, "episodic amnesia" is basically the hallmark of Voyager and a bigger crime in that show than in TNG or TOS given the fact it aired after those shows and had a different concept that lent itself more to serialization. But I just rate episodes by their individual merits like I would a TNG episode. However when it comes to rating the actual show itself, I obviously take a different approach and consider more than just all the individual parts but rather the whole thing.
__________________

Click to expand...

You and alot of other people think character development in Voyager is completely non-existent. The series began with the premise that the characters were already developed. A bunch of people out of the academy has alot to do but not in the way of personnal development.
Janeway never elected Tom to get a second chance if she didn't know he was mature. She trusted and relied on all of her officers.
What I like about Voyager is every episode started a completely different story, following new tactics and exploring new scientific endeavors. This was less important in DS9.

Well even Garret Wang said his character was nothing more than a cardboard cutout and yet you're superimposing all these supposedly visible character changes that were so subtly and masterfully inserted as the seasons went on. It must be great to live in your world stj where everything is actually better than it is in reality.

You and alot of other people think character development in Voyager is completely non-existent. The series began with the premise that the characters were already developed. A bunch of people out of the academy has alot to do but not in the way of personnal development

Click to expand...

What world do you live in? Cuz it sure as heck ain't the same one I'm in.

What I like about Voyager is every episode started a completely different story, following new tactics and exploring new scientific endeavors. This was less important in DS9.

Click to expand...

I liked that too, but single good stories each week isn't everything. There's the step back to look at the show as a whole - character development, cohesiveness, realization of initial potential and many things that Voyager did fail at. If that stuff doesn't concern you or you wave it away with bizarre logic like "the crew of Voyager were already developed so it made sense we saw no more development in the 7 years they were in this totally unique and life-changing experience" then that's your choice but I'd rather face facts.

There definitely was character development for all of the people on the show, even Harry, but for a lot of these characters it's so subtle that it might as well not have happened. The only reason I noticed it on my re-watch of the series was because I flew through it very quickly. Watching it over the course of seven years, you make not notice it at all.

It wasn't less important - it was recognised as an alternative and inferior approach and dismissed in favour of a more mature and rewarding format.

Click to expand...

Recognised by whom to be an "inferior" approach? I love arc storytelling, but you can't just throw shit out like that. They obviously didn't think it was that bad that they returned to it two years later when Voyager premiered.

Recognised by whom to be an "inferior" approach? I love arc storytelling, but you can't just throw shit out like that.

Click to expand...

Well by most critics for one. "Deep Space Nine" is still a much better received show than "Voyager" in the popular media.
Just off the top of the head, DS9 features in both IGN's top 50 sci-fi shows list (#12) and Empire Magazine's top 50 tv shows ever list (#47) while Voyager doesn't. Over the years, I've seen DS9 praised much more than VOY and VOY derided much more than DS9 in various magazines and publications.

Recognised by whom to be an "inferior" approach? I love arc storytelling, but you can't just throw shit out like that.

Click to expand...

Well by most critics for one. "Deep Space Nine" is still a much better received show than "Voyager" in the popular media.
Just off the top of the head, DS9 features in both IGN's top 50 sci-fi shows list (#12) and Empire Magazine's top 50 tv shows ever list (#47) while Voyager doesn't. Over the years, I've seen DS9 praised much more than VOY and VOY derided much more than DS9 in various magazines and publications.

Click to expand...

I'm not talking about the shows. I'm talking about the storytelling methods. The post implied that episodic TV is considered an inferior format, which doesn't make any sense since they decided to return to that format for Voyager.

The only point I was making was that neither is superior or inferior. It all depends on what you do with them.

Click to expand...

I would disagree. In critical circles, the episodic format these days is definitely mostly regarded as outdated, inferior, bland and a bit lazy when it comes to hour-long dramas. All the bland procedurals on CBS spring to mind - NCIS, Criminal Minds etc. They pale in comparison to the shows that have properly serialized seasons.
On the other side of the coin, making a show serialized can definitely help it hold onto viewers as the show won't get confuse viewers with complicated and detailed lore and backstory (which has happened with "Fringe" I think) - but for viewers who have stayed with a serialized show, the rewards are bigger over those who just tune in for an adventure of the week type show.

I guess it depends on what "rewards" your talking about. I personally prefer serialized shows, but shows such as those on CBS manage to hold on to a lot of viewers. From the network's perspective, episodic TV is a lot easier to grab new viewers because they can usually jump in whenever they want.

It wasn't less important - it was recognised as an alternative and inferior approach and dismissed in favour of a more mature and rewarding format.

Click to expand...

Recognised by whom to be an "inferior" approach? I love arc storytelling, but you can't just throw shit out like that. They obviously didn't think it was that bad that they returned to it two years later when Voyager premiered.

Click to expand...

Yes, but the creative team behind DS9 were brilliant and so was the show.

The decisions made by the Voyager team were poor and so was the show...

Yes, but the creative team behind DS9 were brilliant and so was the show.

The decisions made by the Voyager team were poor and so was the show...

Click to expand...

I particularly like how Ron Moore transferred to Deep Space 9 after TNG ended and wrote some of its best episodes. Then, when DS9 ended, he transferred to Voyager and wrote one episode before quitting because the Voyager production team was shit. He then proceeded to make the phenomenal Battlestar Galactica as a big "F-U" to the Star Trek universe.

Yes, but the creative team behind DS9 were brilliant and so was the show.

The decisions made by the Voyager team were poor and so was the show...

Click to expand...

I particularly like how Ron Moore transferred to Deep Space 9 after TNG ended and wrote some of its best episodes. Then, when DS9 ended, he transferred to Voyager and wrote one episode before quitting because the Voyager production team was shit. He then proceeded to make the phenomenal Battlestar Galactica as a big "F-U" to the Star Trek universe.

Yes, but the creative team behind DS9 were brilliant and so was the show.

The decisions made by the Voyager team were poor and so was the show...

Click to expand...

I particularly like how Ron Moore transferred to Deep Space 9 after TNG ended and wrote some of its best episodes. Then, when DS9 ended, he transferred to Voyager and wrote one episode before quitting because the Voyager production team was shit. He then proceeded to make the phenomenal Battlestar Galactica as a big "F-U" to the Star Trek universe.

I particularly like how Ron Moore transferred to Deep Space 9 after TNG ended and wrote some of its best episodes. Then, when DS9 ended, he transferred to Voyager and wrote one episode before quitting because the Voyager production team was shit. He then proceeded to make the phenomenal Battlestar Galactica as a big "F-U" to the Star Trek universe.

The primary characteristics imputed to Kim in later seasons are a mild hypochondria and a mild resentment at not being promoted.

Click to expand...

You'll have to refresh my memory as to where the hypochondria comes up. I don't remember it. As to being mildly resentful towards not being promoted, that would have been an interesting character trait had it actually been played (two lines of dialogue -- all I can remember -- don't count).

Actually, Kim is also supposed to be both brilliant and a complete fuckup, but not in a comic Rodney McKay way. If Kim was really a main character this would have been a major problem in the show characterization.

Click to expand...

When was he a complete fuck up? Kim's character was that he was brilliant at his work (as evidenced by joining the senior staff of a choice assignment right out of the Academy), but inept outside of it (as evidenced by his awkwardness with women as the show went on, but immediately illustrated in "Caretaker" when Quark almost talks him out of his money). Of course, we're also supposed to believe that he has a beautiful and attractive fiance back home. If that isn't geek wish fulfillment, it's certainly inconsistent writing.

I must confess I don't remember a second of "Nightingale," but I was amused to read Jammer's review of the episode and have one of the first things come up be this comment:

Jammer said:

The story break meetings must boil down to: "That darn Harry! He's such a funny, naive kid! How green can we make him this week?"

Click to expand...

Yeah, he was played as naive from beginning to end, except for the occasional outlier like "The Disease." Of course, in the true fashion of the series, Harry's mistake and Janeway's dressing down don't have any repercussions.

As for Chakotay, Beltran seems not to have wanted to do much besides his player persona, which by the way he does very well.

Click to expand...

This comment is silly. From numerous interviews and convention appearances, its obvious Beltran wanted to be doing more, but the writers didn't give him the material.

Again, if you try to watch everyone on screen, when other dialogue and action is taking place, Beltran doesn't usually react if he doesn't have lines or action himself. People love to bash Wang's acting, but he usually acted like he was in the scene, even without lines or action. But then, most people talk about "wooden" performances, and to my eyes Wang wasn't that either. I almost never see criticism of Wang as hammy.

Click to expand...

Sounds like a description of a bored actor to me, especially in light of Beltran's interviews during and after the series.